The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-CV-00092-KDB-DSC
DONALD E. SPARKS,
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER
IREDELL-STATESVILLE BOARD OF
EDUCATION et al.,
Defendants.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants Iredell-Statesville Board of
Education’s and Alvera J. Lesane’s (“Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 10), the
Memorandum and Recommendation of the Honorable Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer
(“M&R”) entered January 25, 2021 (Doc. No. 15), and Plaintiff Donald E. Sparks’s Objection to
the M&R (Doc. No. 17). The Court has carefully considered the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff’s
Objections, and the parties’ briefs and exhibits on record in this action. The Court concludes
after its de novo review that the recommendation to grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is
correct and in accordance with the law. Therefore, the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate
Judge will be ADOPTED and the Motion to Dismiss will be GRANTED.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
A district court may designate a magistrate judge to “submit to a judge of the court
proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition” of certain pretrial matters,
including motions to dismiss. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Any party may object to the magistrate
judge’s proposed findings and recommendations, and the court “shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Objections to the magistrate’s proposed
findings and recommendations must be made “with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert
the district court of the true ground for the objection.” United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616,
622 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 551 U.S. 1157 (2007). However, the Court does not perform a de
novo review where a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the
court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations.”Orpiano v.
Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). After reviewing the record, the court may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for “failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted” tests whether the complaint is legally and factually
sufficient. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); Coleman v. Md. Court of Appeals, 626 F.3d 187,
190 (4th Cir. 2010), aff'd, 566 U.S. 30 (2012). A court need not accept a complaint's “legal
conclusions, elements of a cause of action, and bare assertions devoid of further factual
enhancement.” Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 255 (4th Cir.
2009). The court, however, “accepts all well-pled facts as true and construes these facts in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff in weighing the legal sufficiency of the complaint.” Id.
Construing the facts in this manner, a complaint must contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted
as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. Thus, a motion to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(6) determines only whether a claim is stated; “it does not resolve contests
surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses.” Republican Party v.
Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992).
II. DISCUSSION
In this action, Plaintiff, a former teacher and assistant football coach at Statesville High
School, claims that the Defendants violated his rights and forced him to retire through a faulty
hiring process for the Athletic Director position at Statesville High School. He alleges claims for
(1) negligent infliction of emotional distress, (2) wrongful discharge in violation of public policy,
and violations of (3) procedural due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (4) substantive due process
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and (5) equal protection under 42 U.S.C § 1983.
The first ten pages of Plaintiff’s objections are under the heading “Specific Objections to
Proposed Findings of Fact.” (Doc. No. 17, at 2-12). Plaintiff objects to the M&R on the grounds
“that there are a number of specific facts, that are discussed in the verified Complaint and
Exhibits, that are not mentioned” in the M&R’s “Factual Background and Procedural History”
section. Id. at 2. He does not argue that the factual recitation contained in the M&R is incorrect,
but only that it is “lacking in completeness.” Id.
The Magistrate Judge included a brief and accurate summary of the factual allegations
contained in the Complaint. The Court was not required to recite in its M&R the entirety of
Plaintiff’s Complaint and exhibits. Moreover, this Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint in its
entirety and finds that none of Plaintiff’s objections to the recitation of the factual allegations in
the Complaint would alter the Magistrate Judge’s or this Court’s analysis or legal conclusions.
Thus, the Court has considered Plaintiff’s objections to the recitation of facts in the M&R but
overrules his objections.
After an independent review of Plaintiff’s remaining objections to the M&R and a de novo
review of the full record, the Court concludes that the recommendation to grant Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss is correct and in accordance with law. Plaintiff’s objections are a repackaging
of the arguments contained in his response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, which the
Magistrate Judge fully and properly considered when issuing his M&R. For the reasons stated in
the M&R as well as Defendants’ briefs, the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge will
be adopted and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss granted.
I. ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. The Court adopts the findings and conclusions of the M&R and accepts its
recommendation to grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss;
2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED; and
3. The Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants are dismissed with prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
Kenneth D. Bell
United States District Judge woe
Signed: April 20, 2021